Data processing systems for fulfilling data subject access requests and related methods

ABSTRACT

Responding to a data subject access request includes receiving the request and identifying the requestor and source. In response to identifying the requestor and source, a computer processor determines whether the data subject access request is subject to fulfillment constraints, including whether the requestor or source is malicious. If so, then the computer processor denies the request or requests a processing fee prior to fulfillment. If not, then the computer processor fulfills the request.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/512,011, filed Jul. 15, 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/226,290, filed Dec. 19, 2018, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,354,089, issued Jul. 16, 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/054,672, filed Aug. 3, 2018, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,169,609, issued Jan. 1, 2019, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/547,530, filed Aug. 18, 2017, and which is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/996,208, filed Jun. 1, 2018, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,181,051, issued Jan. 15, 2019, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/537,839, filed Jul. 27, 2017, and is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/853,674, filed Dec. 22, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,019,597, issued Jul. 10, 2018, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/541,613, filed Aug. 4, 2017, and is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/619,455, filed Jun. 10, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,851,966, issued Dec. 26, 2017, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/254,901, filed Sep. 1, 2016, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,729,583, issued Aug. 8, 2017, which claims priority from: (1) U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/360,123, filed Jul. 8, 2016; (2) U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/353,802, filed Jun. 23, 2016; and (3) U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/348,695, filed Jun. 10, 2016. The disclosures of all of the above patent applications are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

BACKGROUND

Over the past years, privacy and security policies, and related operations have become increasingly important. Breaches in security, leading to the unauthorized access of personal data (which may include sensitive personal data) have become more frequent among companies and other organizations of all sizes. Such personal data may include, but is not limited to, personally identifiable information (PII), which may be information that directly (or indirectly) identifies an individual or entity. Examples of PII include names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, and biometric identifiers such as a person's fingerprints or picture. Other personal data may include, for example, customers' Internet browsing habits, purchase history, or even their preferences (e.g., likes and dislikes, as provided or obtained through social media).

Many organizations that obtain, use, and transfer personal data, including sensitive personal data, have begun to address these privacy and security issues. To manage personal data, many companies have attempted to implement operational policies and processes that comply with legal and industry requirements. However, there is an increasing need for improved systems and methods to manage personal data in a manner that complies with such policies.

SUMMARY

It should be appreciated that this Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.

A computer-implemented method for responding to a data subject access request is provided. According to one aspect, one or more computer processors receive a data subject access request from a requestor, the request having one or more pieces of personal data. The computer processor identifies the requestor based at least in part the personal data. The computer processor identifies the source of the request based at least in part on the requestor or source data associated with the data subject access request. In response to identifying the requestor and the source of the data subject access request the computer processor determines whether the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints associated with the requestor or the source by determining whether the requestor is a malicious requestor or whether the source is a malicious source. In response to determining that the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints, the computer processor denies the data subject access request, or requests one or more processing fees prior to fulfilling the request. In response to determining that the data subject access request is not subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints, the computer processor fulfills the data subject access request.

According to another aspect, a computer-implemented method for responding to a data subject access request includes receive a data subject access request from a requestor, the request having one or more request parameters from a requestor at a source. In response to receiving the data subject access request, one or more computer processors retrieve fulfillment constraint data associated with the data subject access request from a repository server corresponding to a number of data subject access requests from a number of requestors and a number of sources. The computer processor determines whether the requestor is a malicious requestor or whether the source is a malicious source based on the fulfillment constraint data and the request parameters. In response to determining that the requestor is a malicious requestor or that the source is a malicious source, the computer processor determines whether the data subject access request is subject to one or more fulfillment constraints. If so, the computer processor denies the data subject access request or requests one or more processing fees prior to fulfilling the request.

According to yet another aspect, a computer-implemented method for responding to a data subject access request includes one or more computer processors receiving a data subject access request with one or more pieces of personal data associated with a requestor. The computer processor identifies the requestor based at least in part on the request parameters. In response to identifying the requestor, the computer processor retrieves fulfillment constraint data associated with the requestor. The computer processor determines whether the requestor is potentially malicious based on the fulfillment constraint data. In response to determining that the requestor is potentially malicious, the computer processor determines whether the data subject access request is subject to one or more fulfillment constraints. If so, the computer processor denies the data subject access request or requests one or more processing fees prior to fulfilling the request. If not, the computer processor fulfills the data subject access request.

The features, functions, and advantages that have been discussed can be achieved independently in various embodiments of the present disclosure or may be combined in yet other embodiments, further details of which can be seen with reference to the following description and drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various embodiments of a data subject access request fulfillment system are described below. In the course of this description, reference will be made to the accompanying drawings, which are not necessarily drawn to scale, and wherein:

FIGS. 1-6 depict various exemplary screen displays and user interfaces that a user of various embodiments of the system may encounter.

FIG. 7 depicts a data subject request processing and fulfillment system according to particular embodiments.

FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of a computer (such as the data model generation server 110, or data model population server 120) that is suitable for use in various embodiments of the data subject request processing and fulfillment system shown in FIG. 7.

FIGS. 9-49 are computer screen shots that demonstrate the operation of various embodiments.

FIG. 50 depicts a data subject access request response and fulfillment constraint determination system according to particular embodiments.

FIG. 51 depicts a flow chart showing an example of a computer-implemented data processing method for responding to a data subject access request according to particular embodiments.

FIG. 52 depicts a flow chart showing an example of a computer-implemented data processing method for responding to a data subject access request while maintaining fulfillment constraint data according to particular embodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Various embodiments now will be described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings. It should be understood that the invention may be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will be thorough and complete, and will fully convey the scope of the invention to those skilled in the art. Like numbers refer to like elements throughout.

Overview

In various embodiments, an organization, corporation, etc. may be required to provide information requested by an individual for whom the organization stores personal data. As a particular example, an organization may be required to provide an individual with a listing of, for example: (1) any personal data that the organization is processing for an individual, (2) an explanation of the categories of data being processed and the purpose of such processing; (3) categories of third parties to whom the data may be disclosed; (4) etc. In particular embodiments, when processing a data subject access request (e.g., a request for such information), a data subject access request fulfillment system may be configured to verify an identity of the requestor (e.g., a data subject) prior to processing the request.

In various embodiments, a data subject access request fulfillment system may be implemented in the context of any suitable privacy management system that is configured to ensure compliance with one or more legal or industry standards related to the collection and/or storage of private information (e.g., such as personal data). In various embodiments, a particular organization, sub-group, or other entity may initiate a privacy campaign or other activity (e.g., processing activity) as part of its business activities. In such embodiments, the privacy campaign may include any undertaking by a particular organization (e.g., such as a project or other activity) that includes the collection, entry, and/or storage (e.g., in computer memory) of any personal data associated with one or more individuals (e.g., data subjects). In particular embodiments, a privacy campaign may include any project undertaken by an organization that includes the use of personal data, or any other activity that could have an impact on the privacy of one or more individuals.

In any embodiment described herein, personal data may include, for example: (1) the name of a particular data subject (which may be a particular individual); (2) the data subject's address; (3) the data subject's telephone number; (4) the data subject's e-mail address; (5) the data subject's social security number; (6) information associated with one or more of the data subject's credit accounts (e.g., credit card numbers); (7) banking information for the data subject; (8) location data for the data subject (e.g., their present or past location); (9) internet search history for the data subject; and/or (10) any other suitable personal information, such as other personal information discussed herein. In particular embodiments, such personal data may include one or more cookies (e.g., where the individual is directly identifiable or may be identifiable based at least in part on information stored in the one or more cookies).

Various privacy and security policies (e.g., such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, and other such policies) may provide data subjects (e.g., individuals, organizations, or other entities) with certain rights related to the data subject's personal data that is collected, stored, or otherwise processed by an organization. These rights may include, for example: (1) a right to obtain confirmation of whether a particular organization is processing their personal data; (2) a right to obtain information about the purpose of the processing (e.g., one or more reasons for which the personal data was collected); (3) a right to obtain information about one or more categories of data being processed (e.g., what type of personal data is being collected, stored, etc.); (4) a right to obtain information about one or more categories of recipients with whom their personal data may be shared (e.g., both internally within the organization or externally); (5) a right to obtain information about a time period for which their personal data will be stored (e.g., or one or more criteria used to determine that time period); (6) a right to obtain a copy of any personal data being processed (e.g., a right to receive a copy of their personal data in a commonly used, machine-readable format); (7) a right to request erasure (e.g., the right to be forgotten), rectification (e.g., correction or deletion of inaccurate data), or restriction of processing of their personal data; and (8) any other suitable rights related to the collection, storage, and/or processing of their personal data (e.g., which may be provided by law, policy, industry or organizational practice, etc.).

As may be understood in light of this disclosure, a particular organization may undertake a plurality of different privacy campaigns, processing activities, etc. that involve the collection and storage of personal data. In some embodiments, each of the plurality of different processing activities may collect redundant data (e.g., may collect the same personal data for a particular individual more than once), and may store data and/or redundant data in one or more particular locations (e.g., on one or more different servers, in one or more different databases, etc.). In this way, a particular organization may store personal data in a plurality of different locations which may include one or more known and/or unknown locations. As such, complying with particular privacy and security policies related to personal data (e.g., such as responding to one or more requests by data subjects related to their personal data) may be particularly difficult (e.g., in terms of cost, time, etc.). In particular embodiments, the data subject access request fulfillment system may utilize one or more data model generation and population techniques to create a centralized data map with which the system can identify personal data stored, collected, or processed for a particular data subject, a reason for the processing, and any other information related to the processing.

In particular embodiments, the data subject access request fulfillment system is configured to: (1) receive a data subject access request from a data subject, the data subject access request comprising one or more requests related to the one or more rights described above (e.g., a request for a copy of the data subject's personal data, a request regarding how long personal data associated with the data subject is being stored by the system, etc.); (2) process the request; and (3) fulfill the request based at least in part on one or more request parameters.

FIGS. 1-2 depict exemplary screen displays that a user may view when submitting a data subject access request (e.g., exemplary user interfaces for submitting a data subject access request). As shown in FIG. 1, a website associated with a particular organization may include a user-selectable indicia for submitting a privacy-related request. A user desiring to make such a request may select the indicia in order to initiate the data subject access request process.

FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary data subject access request form in both an unfilled and filled out state. As shown in this figure, the system may prompt a user to provide information such as, for example: (1) what type of requestor the user is (e.g., employee, customer, etc.); (2) what the request involves (e.g., requesting info, opting out, deleting data, updating data, etc.); (3) first name; (4) last name; (5) email address; (6) telephone number; (7) home address; (8) one or more other pieces of identifying information; and/or (9) one or more details associated with the request. As will be discussed more fully below, the system may be configured to utilize one or more pieces of information provided by the data subject when processing and fulfilling the data subject access request.

Various embodiments of a data subject access request fulfillment system are described more fully below.

Automatic Identity Validation Systems

In particular embodiments, when processing a data subject access request, the system may be configured to verify an identity of the data subject prior to processing the request (e.g., or as part of the processing step). In various embodiments, confirming the identity of the data subject may, for example, limit a risk that a third-party or other entity may gain unlawful or unconsented to access to the requestor's personal data. The system may, for example, limit processing and fulfillment of requests relating to a particular data subject to requests that are originated by (e.g., received from) the particular data subject. When processing a data subject access request, the system may be configured to use all reasonable measures to verify the identity of the data subject who requests access (e.g., in particular in the context of online services and online identifiers). In particular embodiments, the system is configured to substantially automatically validate an identity of a data subject when processing the data subject access request.

For example, in particular embodiments, the system may be configured to substantially automatically (e.g., automatically) authenticate and/or validate an identity of a data subject using any suitable technique. These techniques may include, for example: (1) one or more credit-based and/or public- or private-information-based verification techniques; (2) one or more company verification techniques (e.g., in the case of a business-to-business data subject access request); (3) one or more techniques involving integration with a company's employee authentication system; (4) one or more techniques involving a company's (e.g., organization's) consumer portal authentication process; (5) etc. Various exemplary techniques for authenticating a data subject are discussed more fully below.

In particular embodiments, when authenticating a data subject (e.g., validating the data subject's identity), the system may be configured to execute particular identity confirmation steps, for example, by interfacing with one or more external systems (e.g., one or more third-party data aggregation systems). For example, the system, when validating a data subject's identity, may begin by verifying that a person with the data subject's name, address, social security number, or other identifying characteristic (e.g., which may have been provided by the data subject as part of the data subject access request) actually exists. In various embodiments, the system is configured to interface with (e.g., transmit a search request to) one or more credit reporting agencies (e.g., Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, etc.) to confirm that a person with one or more characteristics provided by the data subject exists. The system may, for example, interface with such credit reporting agencies via a suitable plugin (e.g., software plugin). Additionally, there might be a verification on behalf of a trusted third-party system (e.g., the controller).

In still other embodiments, the system may be configured to utilize one or more other third-party systems (e.g., such as LexisNexis, IDology, RSA, etc.), which may, for example, compile utility and phone bill data, property deeds, rental agreement data, and other public records for various individuals. The system may be configured to interface with one or more such third-party systems to confirm that a person with one or more characteristics provided by the data subject exists.

After the step of confirming the existence of a person with the one or more characteristics provided by the data subject, the system may be configured to confirm that the person making the data subject access request is, in fact, the data subject. The system may, for example, verify that the requestor is the data subject by prompting the requestor to answer one or more knowledge-based authentication questions (e.g., out-of-wallet questions). In particular embodiments, the system is configured to utilize one or more third-party services as a source of such questions (e.g., any of the suitable third-party sources discussed immediately above). The system may use third-party data from the one or more third-party sources to generate one or more questions. These one or more questions may include questions that a data subject should know an answer to without knowing the question ahead of time (e.g., one or more previous addresses, a parent or spouse name and/or maiden name, etc.).

FIG. 3 depicts an exemplary identity verification questionnaire. As may be understood from this figure, an identity verification questionnaire may include one or more questions whose responses include data that the system may derive from one or more credit agencies or other third-party data aggregation services (e.g., such as previous street addresses, close associates, previous cities lived in, etc.). In particular embodiments, the system is configured to provide these one or more questions to the data subject in response to receiving the data subject access request. In other embodiments, the system is configured to prompt the data subject to provide responses to the one or more questions at a later time (e.g., during processing of the request). In particular other embodiments, the system is configured to substantially automatically compare one or more pieces of information provided as part of the data subject access request to one or more pieces of data received from a third-party data aggregation service in order to substantially automatically verify the requestor's identity.

In still other embodiments, the system may be configured to prompt a requestor to provide one or more additional pieces of information in order to validate the requestor's identity. This information may include, for example: (1) at least a portion of the requestor's social security number (e.g., last four digits); (2) a name and/or place of birth of the requestor's father; (3) a name, maiden name, and/or place of birth of the requestor's mother; and/or (4) any other information which may be useful for confirming the requestor's identity (e.g., such as information available on the requestor's birth certificate). In other embodiments, the system may be configured to prompt the requestor to provide authorization for the company to check the requestor's social security or other private records (e.g., credit check authorization, etc.) to obtain information that the system may use to confirm the requestor's identity. In other embodiments, the system may prompt the user to provide one or more images (e.g., using a suitable mobile computing device) of an identifying document (e.g., a birth certificate, social security card, driver's license, etc.).

The system may, in response to a user providing one or more responses that matches information that the system receives from one or more third-party data aggregators or through any other suitable background, credit, or other search, substantially automatically authenticate the requestor as the data subject. The system may then continue processing the data subject's request, and ultimately fulfill their request.

In particular embodiments, such as embodiments in which the requestor includes a business (e.g., as in a business to business data subject access request), the system may be configured to authenticate the requesting business using one or more company verification techniques. These one or more company validation techniques may include, for example, validating a vendor contract (e.g., between the requesting business and the company receiving the data subject access request); receiving a matching token, code, or other unique identifier provided by the company receiving the data subject access request to the requesting business; receiving a matching file in possession of both the requesting business and the company receiving the data subject access request; receiving a signed contract, certificate (e.g., digital or physical), or other document memorializing an association between the requesting business and the company receiving the data subject access request; and/or any other suitable method of validating that a particular request is actually made on behalf of the requesting business (e.g., by requesting the requesting business to provide one or more pieces of information, one or more files, one or more documents, etc. that may only be accessible to the requesting business).

In other embodiments, the system may be configured to authenticate a request via integration with a company's employee or customer (e.g., consumer) authentication process. For example, in response to receiving a data subject access request that indicates that the data subject is an employee of the company receiving the data subject access request, the system may be configured to prompt the employee to login to the company's employee authentication system (e.g., Okta, Azure, AD, etc.) In this way, the system may be configured to authenticate the requestor based at least in part on the requestor successfully logging into the authentication system using the data subject's credentials. Similarly, in response to receiving a data subject access request that indicates that the data subject is a customer of the company receiving the data subject access request, the system may be configured to prompt the customer to login to an account associated with the company (e.g., via a consumer portal authentication process). In a particular example, this may include, for example, an Apple ID (for data subject access requests received by Apple). In this way, the system may be configured to authenticate the requestor based at least in part on the requestor successfully logging into the authentication system using the data subject's credentials. In some embodiments, the system may be configured to require the requestor to login using two-factor authentication or other suitable existing employee or consumer authentication process.

Data Subject Request Fulfillment Constraints

In various embodiments, a particular organization may not be required to respond to a data subject access request that originates from (e.g., is received from) a malicious requestor or source. A malicious requestor or source may include, for example: a requestor (e.g., an individual) that submits excessive or redundant data subject access requests; a requestor who is a disgruntled employee that was previously and not currently employed by the company receiving the data subject access request that is submitting such requests to tie up the company's resources unnecessarily; a group of requestors such as researchers, professors, students, NGOs, etc. that submit a plurality of requests for reasons other than those reasons provided by policy, law, etc.; a competitor of the company receiving the data subject access request that is submitting such requests to tie up the company's resources unnecessarily; a group of requestors originating from a particular geographic region (e.g., a country) that may submit excessive data subject access requests to disrupt the company's operations or tie up the company's resources unnecessarily for economic or other reasons; a group of requestors associated with a particular political organization that may submit excessive data subject access requests to expend the company's resources for economic or retaliatory reasons; a group of requestors associated with a particular protesting organization (e.g., a group protesting the company, the company's employees, or the any entities affiliated with the company for any reason) that may submit excessive data subject access requests to expend the company's resources; a terrorist or other organization that may spam requests to disrupt the company's operation and response to valid requests; and/or any other request that may fall outside the scope of valid requests made for reasons proscribed by public policy, company policy, or law.

In particular embodiments, the system is configured to maintain a “blacklist” of such malicious requestors. As will be described in detail below, this virtual blacklist may include fulfillment constraint data that may be cross-referenced upon receipt of a data subject access request to determine if the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints. If the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints, then the system may take action on the request according to one or more limitations.

Looking now at FIGS. 50-52, illustrative examples for processing data subject access requests will be described with respect to the utilization of one or more response fulfillment constraints. FIG. 50 shows a visualization of a data subject access request response and fulfillment constraint determination system 5000 according to various embodiments. For clarity purposes, an overview of the system 5000 will be provided prior to a detailed discussion of the various actions and components of the system 5000 and corresponding process.

According to various embodiments, a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) 102 is submitted by a requestor and received at a DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170. The DSAR 102 may be submitted and authenticated in the manner described above. The DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may utilize one or more databases 140 and/or one or more third party servers 160 (discussed in greater detail below with respect to the example system architecture and FIG. 7 below) to determine whether any Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 exists corresponding to the Requestor 112 of the DSAR 102, the Source 114 of the DSAR 102, or Other Fulfillment Constraint Data Criteria 116 related to the DSAR 102. According to particular embodiments, the one or more databases 140 and/or one or more third party servers 160 may include a Third Party Repository Server 104 that serves as a central repository for storing and accessing both Personal Data 108 that is the target of the DSAR 102 and Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 that may be used to impose one or more limitations on any fulfillment of the DSAR 102. By utilizing a Third Party Repository Server 104, the system may analyze global data (e.g., all data collected for a plurality of companies that utilize the data subject access request fulfillment system) to generate the Fulfillment Constraint Data 106.

After verifying the existence of any Fulfillment Constraint Data 106, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 takes action, either by a Fulfillment Action 180 or a Deny Action 190. The action taken by the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may be subject to One or More Limitations 192 (indicated in FIG. 50 by the box outlined with broken lines) depending on the outcome of the search for Fulfillment Constraint Data 106. Specifically, the One or More Limitations 192 may include fulfilling the DSAR 102 conditional upon payment of a processing fee, or denying or rejecting the DSAR 102. Action taken by the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 that is subject to One or More Limitations 192 results in a notification action 194 in which the requestor associated with the DSAR 102 is notified as to the One or More Limitations 192 and the reasoning behind the One or More Limitations 192.

Looking at the system 5000 now in greater detail, the DSAR 102 may be submitted using the exemplary data subject access request form shown and described above with respect to FIGS. 1 and 2. The system may prompt the user to provide information such as, for example: (1) what type of requestor the user is (e.g., employee, customer, etc.); (2) what the request involves (e.g., requesting info, opting out, deleting data, updating data, etc.); (3) first name; (4) last name; (5) email address; (6) telephone number; (7) home address; (8) one or more other pieces of identifying information; and/or (9) one or more details associated with the request. According to various embodiments, the requestor may additionally be prompted to provide information regarding the number of DSARs 102 previously submitted and corresponding dates, as well as any additional employment or organizational affiliation information that could subject the DSAR 102 to one or more response fulfillment constraints. While the system may not rely solely on the information provided by the requestor in determining whether one or more response fulfillment constraints apply to the DSAR 102, time and resources may be saved if the information input by the requestor triggers a response fulfillment constraint without necessitating a search for Fulfillment Constraint Data 106.

According to various embodiments, the system is configured to track a requestor and a source associated with each DSAR 102 and analyze each DSAR 102 to identify requestors and/or sources from which: (1) the company receives a large volume of requests; (2) the company receives a large number of repeat requests; (3) the company receives a request from a requestor or source for which the company does not legally have to respond, or have to respond at no cost. The sources may include, for example: (1) one or more particular IP addresses; (2) one or more particular domains; (3) one or more particular countries; (4) one or more particular institutions; (5) one or more particular geographic regions; (6) one or more political group; and/or (7) one or more protesting group. In response to analyzing the sources of the requests, the system may identify one or more requestors or sources that may be malicious (e.g., are submitting excessive requests). For the purposes of this disclosure, a malicious requestor or source of a DSAR 102 encompasses any DSAR 102 that falls outside of the guidelines and regulations requiring a free response to a DSAR 102.

As an example, the system may be configured to fulfill data subject access requests for the purpose of providing a data subject with information regarding what data the company collects and for what purpose. A typical DSAR 102 may be made so that the data subject can ensure that the company is collecting data for lawful reasons. As such, the system may be configured to identify requestors and other sources of data requests that are made for other reasons (e.g., a malicious reason or one or more reasons that would not obligate the company to respond to the request). These reasons may include, for example, malicious or other reasons. One example includes requests made for research by an academic institution by one or more students or professors. While not malicious in the traditional sense, these requests may be categorized as malicious by the system since they tie up a large amount of company resources and do not require a free response by law. Anticompetitive requests by one or more competitors may be maliciously submitted with the intention to expend company time and resources. Requests by disgruntled former employees may be submitted for nefarious reasons. Requests from a particular country or geographic region may have malicious interests in tying up the resources of the company by submitting excessive or frivolous DSARs 102. Requests from a particular political group may be made with malicious interests in tying up the resources of the company. Similarly, one or more protesting groups or organizations may have the purpose of submitting one or more DSARs 102 to expend time and resources of the company and its employees. It should be appreciated that the disclosure herein encompasses any response fulfillment constraints based on the submission of any DSAR 102 that is not submitted for lawful, legitimate reasons.

In various embodiments, the system is configured to maintain a database of the identified one or more requestors and sources (e.g., in computer memory). In particular embodiments, the database may store a listing of identities, data sources, etc. that have been found (e.g., by the system) to result in one or more response fulfillment constraints that lead to a denial of the request or a fulfillment subject to one or more processing fees. This listing is stored in One or More Databases 140 or reside on One or More Third Party Servers 160 (FIG. 7, discussed below) as Fulfillment Constraint Data 106. As mentioned above, in one particular embodiment, the in One or More Databases 140 or One or More Third Party Servers 160 includes a Third Party Repository Server 104, as shown in FIG. 50.

The Third Party Repository Server 104 acts as a central data-storage repository (e.g., one or more servers, databases, etc.), for the centralized storage of personally identifiable information (PII) and/or Personal Data 108 for one or more particular data subjects. In particular embodiments, the Third Party Repository Server 104 may enable the system to populate one or more data models (e.g., using one or more suitable techniques described herein) substantially on-the-fly (e.g., as the system collects, processes, stores, etc. Personal Data 108 regarding a particular data subject). In this way, in particular embodiments the system is configured to maintain a substantially up-to-date data model for a plurality of data subjects (e.g., each particular data subject for whom the system collects, processes, stores, etc. Personal Data 108). The system may then be configured to substantially automatically respond to one or more data access requests by a data subject (e.g., individual, entity, organization, etc.), for example, using the substantially up-to-date data model.

A particular organization may undertake a plurality of different privacy campaigns, processing activities, etc. that involve the collection and storage of Personal Data 108. In some embodiments, each of the plurality of different processing activities may collect redundant data (e.g., may collect the same Personal Data 108 for a particular individual more than once), and may store data and/or redundant data in one or more particular locations (e.g., on one or more different servers, in one or more different databases, etc.). In this way, a particular organization may store Personal Data 108 in a plurality of different locations which may include one or more known and/or unknown locations. As such, complying with particular privacy and security policies related to Personal Data 108 (e.g., such as responding to one or more requests by data subjects related to their Personal Data 108) may be particularly difficult (e.g., in terms of cost, time, etc.). Accordingly, utilizing and maintaining a Third Party Repository Server 104 for PII may enable the system to more quickly and accurately respond to DSARs 102 and other requests related to collected, stored, and processed Personal Data 108.

In various embodiments, a Third Party Repository Server 104 is configured to facilitate the receipt and centralized storage of Personal Data 108 for each of a plurality of respective data subjects. In particular embodiments, the system may be configured to: (1) receive Personal Data 108 associated with a particular data subject (e.g., a copy of the data, a link to a location of where the data is stored, etc.); and (2) store the Personal Data 108 in a suitable data format (e.g., a data model, a reference table, etc.) for later retrieval.

In particular embodiments, the Third Party Repository Server 104 is configured to: (1) receive an indication that a first party system (e.g., entity) has collected and/or processed a piece of Personal Data 108 for a data subject; (2) determine a location in which the first party system has stored the piece of Personal Data 108; (3) optionally digitally store (e.g., in computer memory) a copy of the piece of Personal Data 108 and associate, in memory, the piece of Personal Data 108 with the data subject; and (4) optionally digitally store an indication of the storage location utilized by the first party system for the piece of Personal Data 108. In particular embodiments, the system is configured to provide a centralized database, for each particular data subject, of any Personal Data 108 processed and/or collected by a particular entity.

Referring again to FIG. 50, whether at a central repository such as the Third Party Repository Server 104, or at One or More Databases 140 or One or More Third Party Servers 160, the system is configured to maintain a listing of Fulfillment Constraint Data 106. This Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 may include, for example, one or more Requestors 112 identified (e.g., by a name, an organization, or other entity) as submitting excessive or other malicious DSARs 102, one or more Sources 114 of malicious DSAR 102 submissions, and/or Other Fulfillment Constraint Data Criteria 116 related to malicious submissions of DSARs 102. An example of Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 related to the identities of one or more Requestors 112 includes the number of requests previously submitted by an individual or organization and any related information, such as the dates and of any previous requests and information regarding the source of the requests (e.g., geographic location, domains and IP addresses). Other examples may include the identities of any objectionable requestors, such as disgruntled employees or individuals with a history of targeting the company with malicious attacks of any sort.

In particular embodiments, the system may, for example, maintain a database (e.g., in computer memory) of former employees that are no longer employed by the company. When comparing the identity of the requesting party with the Requestor 112 identities and corresponding information stored as Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 in the Third Party Repository Server 104, DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may determine that being a former employee alone is not enough to subject the DSAR 102 to one or more response fulfillment constraints, specifically imposing one or more limitations such as a fulfillment of the request subject to a processing fee or denial of the request. Rather, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may impose one or more limitations only if a former employee is further flagged or identified with a malicious history of requests (e.g., excessive requests or requests exceeding a threshold number) or potential for malicious requests. With respect to determining that a requestor possesses a potential for malicious requests, this potential may be stored as a rating or value assigned to the Requestor 112 in the Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 based on historical actions or special circumstances with respect to the requestor' s departure from the company. It should be appreciated that any criteria may be used to determine that the Requestor 112 is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints within the limits of guiding laws and regulations.

According to other embodiments, an example of Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 related to the identities of one or more Requestors 112 includes a customer history associated with the data subjects. The customer history may include one or more spending characteristics of the one or more Requestors 112, as well as any complaint history of the one or more Requestors 112. For example, the spending characteristics or other applicable relationship that a Requestor 112 has with the company may be a factor in determining whether the company fulfills the DSAR 102 at no cost even though not legally obligated to do so, fulfills the DSAR 102 for a processing fee, or denies the DSAR 102. In one embodiment, if a second or subsequent DSAR 102 is received from a Requestor 112 within a threshold period of time (e.g., within a year of the first DSAR 102), then the company may determine that it is worth expending the necessary resources to fulfill the DSAR 102 at no cost, even though not legally required to do so, because the Requestor 112 is a good customer or holds a particular standing or status recognized by the company. In making this determination, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may determine if the one or more spending characteristics of the Requestor 112 includes an amount spent over a reference time period that exceeds a spending threshold. If so, for example, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may fulfill the DSAR 102 after requesting one or more processing fees.

Similar to a purchase history, a complaint history may be valuable Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 utilized by the system to determine how or if to respond to the DSAR 102. For example, it may be beneficial to fulfill a second or subsequent DSAR 102 from a Requestor 112 that has never submitted a complaint or bad review of the company during a substantial period of time even though that subsequent DSAR 102 does not legally require a response at no cost. Conversely, it may be determined that the benefits of fulfilling a subsequent DSAR 102 at no cost from a person with an extensive complaint history outweigh the costs of denying or charging a fee for the request. It should be appreciated that any quantity and type of weighting and prioritization of Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 may be utilized in a decision to fulfill, fulfill with limitations, or deny a DSAR 102. Regardless of the precise manner in which the Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 is used by the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 in determining the action to take on the DSAR 102, the data used in the determination may be digitally attached to the identity of the Requestor 112 and stored in the Third Party Repository Server 104 (or One or More Databases 140 or One or More Third Party Servers 160) as Fulfillment Constraint Data 106.

An example of Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 related to one or more Sources 114 of malicious DSAR 102 submissions includes a particular domain and/or a particular IP address. If a requestor submits an excessive quantity of DSARs 102 using the same computer, then the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may store the domain or IP address associated with those electronic submission as Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 to identify that domain or IP address as a Source 114 of malicious DSAR 102 submissions. In doing so, future DSARs 102 originating from the domain or IP address stored as Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 will be identified by the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 as being malicious or potentially malicious. According to one embodiment, one or more particular domains or IP addresses associated with a competitor of the company are stored as Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 to identify that competitor's domain or IP address as a Source 114 of malicious DSAR 102 submissions. A subsequent search by the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 for Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 associated with a DSAR 102 will result in a determination that the DSAR 102 originated from a competitor, which flags the submission as being potentially malicious.

Another example of Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 related to one or more Sources 114 of malicious DSAR 102 submissions includes a geographic location or region from which the DSAR 102 is submitted. For example, if the DSAR 102 originates from a country or specific geographic region commonly affiliated with a terrorist or other organization that may spam requests to disrupt the company's operation and response to valid requests, then that country or geographic region may be stored as Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 that flags DSARs 102 originating from that country or geographic region as being malicious or potentially malicious.

Similarly, Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 may include identifications of political groups or organizations, protesting groups or organizations that commonly protest or object to the operations of the company, religious groups or organizations, or any other group or organization that may have views, beliefs, or causes that are contrary to those of the company. Any DSARs 102 submitted by a Requestor 112 or a Source 114 that may be affiliated with these groups or organizations may be flagged as being malicious or potentially malicious.

Handling of DSARs that are flagged or otherwise identified as being malicious or potentially malicious may be guided by company policy, applicable laws, and/or regulations. According to various embodiments, if the DSAR 102 is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints, as determined from the presence of applicable Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 associated with the request, then the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 acts on the DSAR 102 according to One or More Limitations 192. The One or More Limitations 192 may include a Fulfillment Action 180 or a Deny Action 190. The Fulfillment Action 180 includes fulfilling the DSAR 102 conditional upon payment of a processing fee. The Deny Action 190 includes denying or rejecting the DSAR 102.

If the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 acts on the DSAR 102 according to

One or More Limitations 192, then a Notification 194 is provided to the requestor. According to various embodiments, the Notification 194 includes a reason for the One or More Limitations 192, such as the presence of one or more response fulfillment constraints. The Notification 194 may further provide the requestor of their right to communicate with a supervisory authority regarding the One or More Limitations 192, and inform the requestor of their right to a judicial remedy without delay. The Notification 194 may include any information mandated by applicable law or regulations, or desired according to company policy.

In addition to providing the Notification 194 to the requestor upon acting on the DSAR 102 according to One or More Limitations 192, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may store or identify Supporting Documents 118 in the Third Party Repository Server 104. Judicial or other review actions taken by a supervisory authority after the denial of a DSAR 102, or fulfillment requiring a payment of a processing fee, may require documentation that identifies the applicable Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 and supports the associated response fulfillment constraints. In this situation, the Third Party Repository Server 104 provides a central storage location for the Supporting Documents 118. It should be appreciated that the Supporting Documents 118 may include links or locations to the electronic or physical documentation stored in locations outside of the Third Party Repository Server 104 (e.g., One or More Databases 140 or One or More Third Party Servers 160).

FIG. 51 illustrates a routine 5100 for responding to a data subject access request 102. A processor 202 associated with the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 may perform this process. The routine 5100 begins at operation 5102, where the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 receives a DSAR 102. At operation 5104, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 validates the identity of the Requestor 112 in the manner described above. The DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 determines at operation 5106 whether the DSAR 102 is subject to response fulfillment constraints. As discussed in detail above, this operation may include searching for Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 in a Third Party Repository Server 104 or other database, server, or combination thereof.

If the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 does not find applicable Fulfillment

Constraint Data 106, then the routine 5100 proceeds from operation 5106 to operation 5108, where the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 takes a Fulfillment Action 180 and processes or fulfills the DSAR 102 and the routine 5100 ends. However, if at operation 5106, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 finds applicable Fulfillment Constraint Data 106, then the routine 5100 proceeds from operation 5106 to operation 5110, where the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 provides a Notification 194 to the Requestor 112 and ensures Supporting Documents 118 are properly stored or indexed to support the One or More Limitations 192 imposed on the DSAR 102. At operation 5112, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 takes the appropriate action according to the One or More Limitations 192 and the process 5100 ends. As discussed above, the One or More Limitations 192 may result in the DSAR 102 being fulfilled after payment of a processing fee, or a Deny Action 190.

Turning now to FIG. 52, a routine 5200 for responding to a data subject access request while maintaining fulfillment constraint data will be discussed according to particular embodiments. The routine 5200 begins at operation 5202, where the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 stores Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 in One or More Databases 140, One or More Third Party Servers 160, or a Third Party Repository Server 104. The Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 may be associated with a Requestor 112, a Source 114 of a DSAR 102, or any Other Fulfillment Constraint Data Criteria 116 related to the DSAR 102. At operation 5204, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 receives a DSAR 102. At operation 5206, the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 retrieves Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 related to the DSAR 102 and takes action based on the DSAR 102 and the Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 at operation 5208. As previously discussed, the action may include fulfilling the request, denying the request, or fulfilling the request after payment of a processing fee. Finally, at operation 5210, the Fulfillment Constraint Data 106 is updated to reflect the current DSAR 102 and associated information related to the Requestor 112 and Source 114, and the routine 5200 ends.

Returning now to FIG. 4, FIG. 4 depicts a queue of pending data subject access requests. As shown in this figure, the first three listed data subject access requests are new and require verification before processing and fulfillment can begin. As shown in this figure, a user (e.g., such as a privacy officer or other privacy controller) may select a particular request, and select an indicia for verifying the request. The user may also optionally select to reject the request. FIG. 5 depicts an authentication window that enables the user to authenticate a particular request. In various embodiments, the user may provide an explanation of why the user is authenticating the request (e.g., because the requestor successfully completed on or more out-of-wallet questions or for any other suitable reason). The user may further submit one or more attachments to support the verification. In this way, the system may be configured to document that the authentication process was performed for each request (e.g., in case there was an issue with improperly fulfilling a request, the company could show that they are following procedures to prevent such improper processing). In other embodiments, the system may enable the user to provide similar support when rejecting a request (e.g., because the requestor was blacklisted, made excessive requests, etc.).

Data Subject Access Request Fulfillment Cost Determination

In various embodiments, as may be understood in light of this disclosure, fulfilling a data subject access request may be particularly costly. In some embodiments, a company may store data regarding a particular data subject in multiple different locations for a plurality of different reasons as part of a plurality of different processing and other business activities. For example, a particular data subject may be both a customer and an employee of a particular company or organization. Accordingly, in some embodiments, fulfilling a data subject access request for a particular data subject may involve a plurality of different information technology (IT) professionals in a plurality of different departments of a particular company or organization. As such, it may be useful to determine a cost of a particular data subject access request (e.g., particularly because, in some cases, a data subject is entitled to a response to their data subject access request as a matter of right at no charge).

In particular embodiments, in response to receiving a data subject access request, the system may be configured to: (1) assign the request to at least one privacy team member; (2) identify one or more IT teams required to fulfill the request (e.g., one or more IT teams associated with one or more business units that may store Personal Data 108 related to the request); (3) delegate one or more subtasks of the request to each of the one or more IT teams; (4) receive one or more time logs from each individual involved in the processing and fulfillment of the data subject access request; (5) calculate an effective rate of each individual's time (e.g., based at least in part on the individual's salary, bonus, benefits, chair cost, etc.); (6) calculate an effective cost of fulfilling the data subject access request based at least in part on the one or more time logs and effective rate of each of the individual's time; and (7) apply an adjustment to the calculated effective cost that accounts for one or more external factors (e.g., overhead, etc.) in order to calculate a cost of fulfilling the data subject access request.

In particular embodiments, the system is configured to substantially automatically track an amount of time spent by each individual involved in the processing and fulfillment of the data subject access request. The system may, for example, automatically track an amount of time between each individual opening and closing a ticket assigned to them as part of their role in processing or fulfilling the data subject access request. In other embodiments, the system may determine the time spent based on an amount of time provided by each respective individual (e.g., the individual may track their own time and submit it to the system).

In various embodiments, the system is configured to measure a cost of each particular data subject access request received, and analyze one or more trends in costs of, for example: (1) data subject access requests over time; (2) related data subject access requests; (3) etc. For example, the system may be configured to track and analyze cost and time-to-process trends for one or more social groups, one or more political groups, one or more class action groups, etc. In particular, the system may be configured to identify a particular group from which the system receives particularly costly data subject access request (e.g., former and/or current employees, members of a particular social group, members of a particular political group, etc.).

In particular embodiments, the system may be configured to utilize data subject access request cost data when processing, assigning, and/or fulfilling future data subject access requests (e.g., from a particular identified group, individual, etc.). For example, the system may be configured to prioritize requests that are expected to be less costly and time-consuming (e.g., based on past cost data) over requests identified as being likely more expensive. Alternatively, the system may prioritize more costly and time-consuming requests over less costly ones in the interest of ensuring that the system is able to respond to each request in a reasonable amount of time (e.g., within a time required by law, such as a thirty-day period, or any other suitable time period). Moreover, the cost data associated with processing, assigning, and/or fulfilling data subject access requests may be a factor utilized by the DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 in determining whether to deny a DSAR 102 or request a processing fee prior to fulfilling a DSAR 102 after determining that the DSAR 102 is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints, as discussed above.

Customer Satisfaction Integration with Data Subject Access Requests

In various embodiments, the system may be configured to collect customer satisfaction data, for example: (1) as part of a data subject access request submission form; (2) when providing one or more results of a data subject access request to the data subject; or (3) at any other suitable time. In various embodiments, the customer satisfaction data may be collected in the form of a suitable survey, free-form response questionnaire, or other suitable satisfaction data collection format (e.g., thumbs up vs. thumbs down, etc.).

FIG. 6 depicts an exemplary customer satisfaction survey that may be included as part of a data subject access request form, provided along with the results of a data subject access request, provided in one or more messages confirming receipt of a data subject access request, etc. As shown in the figure, the customer satisfaction survey may relate to how likely a customer (e.g., a data subject) is to recommend the company (e.g., to which the data subject has submitted the request) to a friend (e.g., or colleague). In the example shown in FIG. 6, the satisfaction survey may relate to a Net Promoter score (NPS), which may indicate a loyalty of a company's customer relationships. Generally speaking, the Net Promoter Score may measure a loyalty that exists between a provider and a consumer. In various embodiments, the provider may include a company, employer, or any other entity. In particular embodiments, the consumer may include a customer, employee, or other respondent to an NPS survey.

In particular embodiments, the question depicted in FIG. 6 is the primary question utilized in calculating a Net Promoter Score (e.g., “how likely is it that you would recommend our company/product/service to a friend or colleague?”). In particular embodiments, the question is presented with responses ranging from 0 (not at all likely) to 10 (extremely likely). In particular embodiments, the question may include any other suitable scale. As may be understood from FIG. 6, the system may be configured to assign particular categories to particular ratings on the 10-point scale. The system may be configured to track and store responses provided by consumers and calculate an overall NPS score for the provider. The system may be further configured to generate a visual representation of the NPS score, including a total number of responses received for each particular score and category as shown in FIG. 6.

In various embodiments, the system may be configured to measure data related to any other suitable customer satisfaction method (e.g., in addition to NPS). By integrating a customer satisfaction survey with the data subject access request process, the system may increase a number of consumers that provide one or more responses to the customer satisfaction survey. In particular embodiments, the system is configured to require the requestor to respond to the customer satisfaction survey prior to submitting the data subject access request.

Exemplary Technical Platforms

As will be appreciated by one skilled in the relevant field, the present invention may be, for example, embodied as a computer system, a method, or a computer program product. Accordingly, various embodiments may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, particular embodiments may take the form of a computer program product stored on a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable instructions (e.g., software) embodied in the storage medium. Various embodiments may take the form of web-implemented computer software. Any suitable computer-readable storage medium may be utilized including, for example, hard disks, compact disks, DVDs, optical storage devices, and/or magnetic storage devices.

Various embodiments are described below with reference to block diagrams and flowchart illustrations of methods, apparatuses (e.g., systems), and computer program products. It should be understood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, respectively, can be implemented by a computer executing computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be loaded onto a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to create means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks.

These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture that is configured for implementing the function specified in the flowchart block or blocks. The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable apparatus to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide steps for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks.

Accordingly, blocks of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations support combinations of mechanisms for performing the specified functions, combinations of steps for performing the specified functions, and program instructions for performing the specified functions. It should also be understood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based computer systems that perform the specified functions or steps, or combinations of special purpose hardware and other hardware executing appropriate computer instructions.

Example System Architecture

FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a data subject access request processing and fulfillment system 100 according to a particular embodiment. In various embodiments, the data subject access request processing and fulfillment system is part of a privacy compliance system (also referred to as a privacy management system), or other system, which may, for example, be associated with a particular organization and be configured to aid in compliance with one or more legal or industry regulations related to the collection and storage of Personal Data 108.

As may be understood from FIG. 7, the data subject access request processing and fulfillment system 100 includes one or more computer networks 115, a Data Model Generation Server 110, a Data Model Population Server 120, an Intelligent Identity Scanning Server 130, One or More Databases 140 or other data structures, one or more remote computing devices 150 (e.g., a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, etc.), and One or More Third Party Servers 160. In particular embodiments, the one or more computer networks 115 facilitate communication between the Data Model Generation Server 110, Data Model Population Server 120, Intelligent Identity Scanning Server 130, One or More Databases 140, one or more remote computing devices 150 (e.g., a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, etc.), One or More Third Party Servers 160, and DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170. Although in the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the Data Model Generation Server 110, Data Model Population Server 120, Intelligent Identity Scanning Server 130, One or More Databases 140, one or more remote computing devices 150 (e.g., a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, etc.), One or More Third Party Servers 160, and DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 are shown as separate servers, it should be understood that in other embodiments, one or more of these servers and/or computing devices may comprise a single server, a plurality of servers, one or more cloud-based servers, or any other suitable configuration.

The one or more computer networks 115 may include any of a variety of types of wired or wireless computer networks such as the Internet, a private intranet, a public switch telephone network (PSTN), or any other type of network. The communication link between The Intelligent Identity Scanning Server 130 and the One or More Third Party Servers 160 may be, for example, implemented via a Local Area Network (LAN) or via the Internet. In other embodiments, the One or More Databases 140 may be stored either fully or partially on any suitable server or combination of servers described herein.

FIG. 8 illustrates a diagrammatic representation of a computer 200 that can be used within the data subject access request processing and fulfillment system 100, for example, as a client computer (e.g., one or more remote computing devices 150 shown in FIG. 7), or as a server computer (e.g., Data Model Generation Server 110, Data Model Population Server 120, Intelligent Identity Scanning Server 130, One or More Third Party Servers 160, and DSAR Processing and Fulfillment Server 170 shown in FIG. 7). In particular embodiments, the computer 200 may be suitable for use as a computer within the context of the data subject access request processing and fulfillment system 100 that is configured to generate a data model and map one or more relationships between one or more pieces of data that make up the model.

In particular embodiments, the computer 200 may be connected (e.g., networked) to other computers in a LAN, an intranet, an extranet, and/or the Internet. As noted above, the computer 200 may operate in the capacity of a server or a client computer in a client-server network environment, or as a peer computer in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The computer 200 may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a server, a network router, a switch or bridge, or any other computer capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that computer. Further, while only a single computer is illustrated, the term “computer” shall also be taken to include any collection of computers that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein.

An exemplary computer 200 includes a processing device 202, a main memory 204 (e.g., read-only memory (ROM), flash memory, dynamic random access memory (DRAM) such as synchronous DRAM (SDRAM) or Rambus DRAM (RDRAM), etc.), static memory 206 (e.g., flash memory, static random access memory (SRAM), etc.), and a data storage device 218, which communicate with each other via a bus 232.

The processing device 202 represents one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, a central processing unit, or the like. More particularly, the processing device 202 may be a complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessor, reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessor, very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessor, or processor implementing other instruction sets, or processors implementing a combination of instruction sets. The processing device 202 may also be one or more special-purpose processing devices such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), network processor, or the like. The processing device 202 may be configured to execute processing logic 226 for performing various operations and steps discussed herein.

The computer 200 may further include a network interface device 208. The computer 200 also may include a video display unit 210 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)), an alphanumeric input device 212 (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device 214 (e.g., a mouse), and a signal generation device 216 (e.g., a speaker).

The data storage device 218 may include a non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium 230 (also known as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or a non-transitory computer-readable medium) on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software instructions 222) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The software instructions 222 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within main memory 204 and/or within processing device 202 during execution thereof by computer 200—main memory 204 and processing device 202 also constituting computer-accessible storage media. The software instructions 222 may further be transmitted or received over a network 115 via network interface device 208.

While the computer-accessible storage medium 230 is shown in an exemplary embodiment to be a single medium, the term “computer-accessible storage medium” should be understood to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more sets of instructions. The term “computer-accessible storage medium” should also be understood to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the computer and that cause the computer to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present invention. The term “computer-accessible storage medium” should accordingly be understood to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories, optical and magnetic media, etc.

Systems for Managing Data Subject Access Requests

In various embodiments, the system may include a ticket management system and/or other systems for managing data subject access requests. Various embodiments of such systems are described below.

Overview

Ticket management systems, according to various embodiments, are adapted to receive data subject access requests (DSAR's) from particular data subjects, and to facilitate the timely processing of valid DSAR's by an appropriate respondent. In particular embodiments, the ticket management system receives DSAR's via one or more webforms that each may be accessed via an appropriate link on a respective web page. In other embodiments, the system may receive DSAR's through any other suitable mechanism, such as via a computer software application (e.g., a messaging application such as Slack, Twitter), or through entry by a representative who may receive the information, for example, via suitable paper forms or over the phone.

The ticket management system may include a webform creation tool that is adapted to allow a user to create customized webforms for receiving DSAR's from various different data subject types and for routing the requests to appropriate individuals for processing. The webform creation tool may, for example, allow the user to specify the language that the form will be displayed in, what particular information is to be requested for the data subject and/or provided by the data subject, who any DSAR's that are received via the webform will be routed to, etc. In particular embodiments, after the user completes their design of the webform, the webform creation tool generates code for the webform that may be cut and then pasted into a particular web page.

The system may be further adapted to facilitate processing of DSAR's that are received via the webforms, or any other suitable mechanism. For example, the ticket management system may be adapted to execute one or more of the following steps for each particular DSAR received via the webforms (or other suitable mechanism) described above: (1) before processing the DSAR, confirm that the DSAR request was actually submitted by the particular data subject of the DSAR (or, for example, by an individual authorized to make the DSAR request on the data subject's behalf, such as a parent, guardian, power-of-attorney holder, etc.)—any suitable method may be used to confirm the identity of the entity/individual submitting the DSAR—for example, if the system receives the DSAR via a third-party computer system, the system may validate authentication via API secret, or by requiring a copy of one or more particular legal documents (e.g., a particular contract between two particular entities)—the system may validate the identity of an individual by, for example, requiring the individual (e.g., data subject) to provide particular account credentials, by requiring the individual to provide particular out-of-wallet information, through biometric scanning of the individual (e.g., finger or retinal scan), or via any other suitable identity verification technique; (2) if the DSAR was not submitted by the particular data subject, deny the request; (3) if the DSAR was submitted by the particular data subject, advance the processing of the DSAR; (4) route the DSAR to the correct individual(s) or groups internally for handling; (5) facilitate the assignment of the DSAR to one or more other individuals for handling of one or more portions of the DSAR; and/or (6) facilitate the suspension of the data subject access request. In particular embodiments, the system may perform any one or more of the above steps automatically. The system then generates a receipt for the DSAR request that the user can use for a transactional record of their submitted request.

In particular embodiments, the ticket management system may be adapted to generate a graphical user interface (e.g., a DSAR request-processing dashboard) that is adapted to allow a user (e.g., a privacy officer of an organization that is receiving the DSAR) to monitor the progress of any the DSAR requests. The GUI interface may display, for each DSAR, for example, an indication of how much time is left (e.g., quantified in days and/or hours) before a legal and/or internal deadline to fulfill the request. The system may also display, for each DSAR, a respective user-selectable indicium that, when selected, may facilitate one or more of the following: (1) verification of the request; (2) assignment of the request to another individual; (3) requesting an extension to fulfill the request; (4) rejection of the request; or (5) suspension of the request.

As noted immediately above, and elsewhere in this application, in particular embodiments, any one or more of the above steps may be executed by the system automatically. As a particular example, the system may be adapted to automatically verify the identity of the DSAR requestor and then automatically fulfill the DSAR request by, for example, obtaining the requested information via a suitable data model and communicating the information to the requestor. As another particular example, the system may be configured to automatically route the DSAR to the correct individual for handling based at least in part on one or more pieces of information provided (e.g., in the webform).

Operation of Example Implementation

FIGS. 9-49 are screen shots that demonstrate the operation of a particular embodiment. FIGS. 9-12 show a graphical user interface (GUI) of an example webform construction tool. FIG. 9 shows a user working to design a webform called “Web_form_1”. As may be understood from the vertical menu shown on the left-hand side of the screen, the webform construction tool allows users to design a webform by: (1) specifying the details of the form (via the “Form Details” tab); (2) defining the fields that will be displayed on the webform (via the “Webform Fields” tab); (3) defining the styling of the webform (via the “Form Styling” tab); and (4) defining various settings associated with the webform (via the “Settings” tab). As shown in FIGS. 10-12, the user may also specify text to be displayed on the webform (e.g., via a “Form Text” tab).

FIG. 10 shows that, by selecting the “Form Details” tab, the user may define which answers a requestor will be able to specify on the webform in response to prompts for information regarding what type of individual they are (customer, employee, etc.) and what type of request they are making via the webform. Example request types include: (1) a request for all Personal Data 108 that an organization is processing for the data subject (a copy of the Personal Data 108 in a commonly used, machine-readable format); (2) a request for all such Personal Data 108 to be deleted; (3) a request to update Personal Data 108 that the organization is storing for the data subject; (4) a request to opt out of having the organization use the individual's personal information in one or more particular ways (e.g., per the organization's standard business practices); (5) file a complaint; and/or (6) other.

FIG. 11 shows that, by selecting the “Settings” tab, the user may specify various system settings, such as whether Captcha will be used to verify that information is being entered by a human, rather than a computer.

FIG. 12 shows that, by selecting the Form Styling tab, the user may specify the styling of the webform. The styling may include, for example: (1) a header logo; (2) header height; (3) header color; (4) body text color; (5) body text size; (6) form label color; (7) button color; (8) button text color; (9) footer text color; (10) footer text size; and/or any other suitable styling related to the webform.

In other embodiments, the system is configured to enable a user to specify, when configuring a new webform, what individual at a particular organization (e.g., company) will be responsible for responding to requests made via the webform. The system may, for example, enable the user to define a specific default sub-organization (e.g., within the organization) responsible for responding to DSAR's submitted via the new webform. As such, the system may be configured to automatically route a new DSAR made via the new webform to the appropriate sub-organization for processing and fulfillment. In various embodiments, the system is configured to route one or more various aspects of the DSAR to one or more different sub-organizations within the organization.

In still other embodiments, the system is configured to enable a user generating webforms to assign multiple webforms to multiple different suborganizations within an organization. For example, an organization called ACME, Inc. may have a website for each of a plurality of different brands (e.g., sub-organizations) under which ACME sells products (e.g., UNICORN Brand T-shirts, GRIPP Brand Jeans, etc.). As may be understood in light of this disclosure, each website for each of the particular brands may include an associated webform for submitting DSAR' s. Each respective webform may be configured to route a DSAR made via its associated brand website to a particular sub-organization within ACME for handling DSAR's related to the brand.

As noted above, after the user uses the webform construction tool to design a particular webform for use on a particular web page, the webform construction tool generates code (e.g., HTML code) that may be pasted into the particular web page to run the designed webform page.

FIG. 13 shows the privacy webpage of a company (e.g., the ACME corporation). As shown in this figure, a requestor may submit a DSAR by selecting a “Submit a Privacy Related Request” button on the web page.

FIG. 14 shows a webform that is displayed after a requestor selects the “Submit a Privacy Related Request” button on the privacy webpage of FIG. 13. As may be understood from this figure, the requestor may complete the webform by specifying which type of user they are, and what type of request they are making. The webform also asks the requestor to provide enough personal information to confirm their identity (e.g., and fulfill the request). As shown in this figure, the system may prompt a user submitting a DSAR to provide information such as, for example: (1) what type of requestor the user is (e.g., employee, customer, etc.); (2) what the request involves (e.g., requesting info, opting out, deleting data, updating data, etc.); (3) first name; (4) last name; (5) email address; (6) telephone number; (7) home address; (8) one or more other pieces of identifying information; and/or (9) one or more details associated with the request. FIG. 15 shows an example populated version of the webform.

As shown in FIG. 16, after a requestor completes the webform and selects a “submit” indicia, the system displays a message to the requestor indicating that their DSAR has been successfully submitted. The system also displays a Request ID associated with the request. In response to the requestor successfully submitting the request, the system may also send an email to the requestor confirming the request. An example of a suitable confirmation email is shown in FIG. 17.

In various embodiments, the system includes a dashboard that may be used by various individuals within an organization (e.g., one or more privacy officers of an organization) to manage multiple DSAR requests. As discussed above, the dashboard may display DSAR's submitted, respectively, to a single organization, any of multiple different sub-organizations (divisions, departments, subsidiaries etc.) of a particular organization, and/or any of multiple independent organizations. For example, the dashboard may display DSAR's that were submitted from a parent organization and from the parent organization's U.S. and European subsidiaries. This may be advantageous, for example, because it may allow an organization to manage all DSAR requests of all of its sub-organizations centrally.

FIGS. 18-29, 31-33, 35-40, and 45-47 depict various example user-interface screens of a DSAR request-management dashboard. As may be understood from FIG. 18, after an appropriate user (e.g., a privacy officer associated with a particular organization) logs into the system, the system may display a Data Subject Request Queue that may, for example, display a listing of all data subject access requests that the appropriate individual has been designated to process. As shown in FIG. 18, each data subject access request may be represented by a respective row of information that includes: (1) an ID number for the request; (2) the name of the data subject who has submitted the request; (3) the status of the request; (4) the number of days that are left to respond to the request (e.g., according to applicable laws and/or internal procedures); (5) an indication as to whether the deadline to respond to the request has been extended; (6) a creation date of the request; (7) an indication of the type of requestor that submitted the request (customer, employee, etc.); (8) the name of the individual who has been assigned to process the request (e.g., the respondent). This screen may also include selectable “Edit” and “Filter” buttons that respectively facilitate acting on and filtering the various requests displayed on the page.

As shown in FIG. 19, in response to a respondent selecting the edit button, the system displays a dropdown menu allowing the respondent to select between taking the following actions: (1) verify the request; (2) assign the request to another individual; (3) request an extension; (4) reject the request; or (5) suspend the request.

FIGS. 20 and 21 show a message that the system displays to the respondent in response to the respondent selecting the “verify” option. As shown in this figure, the system prompts the respondent to indicate whether they are sure that they wish to authenticate the request. The system also presents an input field where the respondent can enter text to be displayed to the requestor along with a request for the requestor to provide information verifying that they are the data subject associated with the request. After the respondent populates the input field, they may submit the request by selecting a “Submit” button.

In other embodiments, the input field may enable the respondent to provide one or more supporting reasons for a decision, by the respondent, to authenticate the request. The respondent may also upload one or more supporting documents (such as an attachment). The supporting documents or information may include, for example, one or more documents utilized in confirming the requestor's identity, etc.

In response to the respondent selecting the Submit button, the system changes the status of the request to “In Progress” and also changes the color of the request's status from orange to blue (or to any other suitable color)—see FIG. 22. The system also generates and sends a message (e.g., an electronic or paper message) to the requestor asking them to submit information verifying the request. The message may include the text that the respondent entered in the text box of FIGS. 20 and 21.

As shown in FIGS. 23-25, in response to a respondent selecting the “Edit” button and then selecting the “Assign” indicia from the displayed dropdown menu, the system displays a Request Assignment interface that allows a respondent to indicate who the request should be assigned to. For example, the respondent may indicate that they will be handling the request, or assign the request to another suitable individual, who may, for example, then be designated as the respondent for the request. If the respondent assigns the request to another individual, they may also provide an email address or other correspondence information for the individual. The Request Assignment interface includes a comment box for allowing a respondent to add a message to the individual that the assignment will be assigned to regarding the assignment. In response to the respondent selecting the “Assign” button, the system assigns the request to the designated individual for handling. If the request has been assigned to another individual, the system automatically generates and sends a message (e.g., an electronic message such as an email or SMS message) to the individual informing them of the assignment.

As shown in FIGS. 26-28, in response to a respondent selecting the “Edit” button and then selecting the “Reject” indicia from the displayed dropdown menu, the system displays a Reject Request interface. This interface includes a comment box for allowing a respondent to add a message to the requestor as to why the request was rejected. In response to the respondent selecting the “Submit” button, the system changes the status of the request to “Rejected” and changes the color of the request's status indicator to red (See FIG. 29). The system may also automatically generate a message (e.g., an electronic or paper message) to the requestor notifying them that their request has been rejected and displaying the text that the respondent entered into the Reject Request interface of FIG. 28. An example of such a message is shown in FIG. 30.

As shown in FIGS. 31-32, in response to a respondent selecting the “Edit” button and then selecting the “Request Extension” indicia from the displayed dropdown menu, the system displays a Request Extension interface. This includes a text box for allowing a user to indicate the number of days for which they would like to extend the current deadline for responding to the request. For example, the dialog box of FIG. 32 shows the respondent requesting that the current deadline be extended by 90 days. In response to the respondent entering a desired extension duration and selecting the “Submit” button, the system updates the deadline in the system's memory (e.g., in an appropriate data structure) to reflect the extension. For instance, in the example of FIG. 32, the system extends the deadline to be 90 days later than the current deadline. As shown in FIG. 33, the system also updates the “Days Left to Respond” field within the Data Subject Request Queue to reflect the extension (e.g., from 2 days from the current date to 92 days from the current date). As shown in FIG. 34, the system may also generate an appropriate message (e.g., an electronic or paper message) to the requestor indicating that the request has been delayed. This message may provide a reason for the delay and/or an anticipated updated completion date for the request.

In particular embodiments, the system may include logic for automatically determining whether a requested extension complies with one or more applicable laws or internal policies and, in response, either automatically grant or reject the requested extension. For example, if the maximum allowable time for replying to a particular request is 90 days under the controlling laws and the respondent requests an extension that would result in the fulfillment of the request 91 or more days from the date that the request was submitted, the system may automatically reject the extension request. In various embodiments, the system may also communicate, to the respondent (e.g., via a suitable electronic message or text display on a system user interface) an explanation as to why the extension request was denied, and/or a maximum amount of time (e.g., a maximum number of days) that the deadline may be extended under the applicable laws or policies. In various embodiments, if the system determines that the requested extension is permissible under the applicable laws and/or policies, the system may automatically grant the extension. In other embodiments, the system may be configured to automatically modify a length of the requested extension to conform with one or more applicable laws and/or policies.

As shown in FIGS. 35-40, a respondent may obtain additional details regarding a particular request by selecting (e.g., clicking on) the request on the Data Subject Request Queue screen. For example, FIG. 36 shows a Data Subject Request Details screen that the system displays in response to a respondent selecting the “Donald Blair” request on the user interface screen of FIG. 35. As shown in FIG. 36, the Data Subject Request Details screen shows all correspondence between the organization and the requesting individual regarding the particular data subject access request. As may be understood from FIG. 37, when a respondent selects a particular correspondence (e.g., email), the system displays the correspondence to the respondent for review or other processing.

As shown in FIG. 38, in various embodiments, the system may provide a selectable “Reply” indicia that allows the respondent to reply to particular correspondence from an individual. As may be understood from this figure, in response to the respondent selecting the “Reply” indicia, the system may display a dropdown menu of various standard replies. For example, the dropdown menu may provide the option of generating a reply to the requestor indicating that the request has been rejected, is pending, has been extended, or that the request has been completed.

As shown in FIG. 39, in response to the respondent selecting “Reply as Completed”, the system may display a draft email to the requestor explaining that the request has been completed. The respondent may then edit this email and send the correspondence (e.g., via email) to the requestor by selecting a “Send as Complete” indicia. As shown in FIG. 40, the system may, in response, display an indicator adjacent the correspondence indicating that the correspondence included a reply indicating that the request was complete. This may be useful in allowing individuals to understand the contents of the correspondence without having to open it.

FIG. 41 shows an example email automatically generated by the system in response to the respondent selecting “Reply as Completed” on the screen shown in FIG. 38. As shown in FIG. 41, the correspondence may include a secure link that the requestor may select to access the data that was requested in the DSAR. In particular embodiments, the link is a link to a secure website, such as the website shown in FIG. 42, that provides access to the requested data (e.g., by allowing a user to download a .pdf file, or other suitable file, that includes the requested data). As shown in FIGS. 42, the website may require multiple pieces of data to verify that the requestor is permitted to access the site. For example, in order to access the website, the requestor may be required to provide both the unique ID number of the request, and an authentication token, which the system may send to the user via email—See FIGS. 43 and 44.

FIGS. 45-49 are computer screen shots that depict additional user interfaces according to various embodiments.

Additional Concepts

Automated Data Subject Verification

In various embodiments, before a data subject request can be processed, the data subject's identity needs to be verified. In various embodiments, the system provides a mechanism to automatically detect the type of authentication required for a particular data subject based on the type of Data Subject Access Request being made and automatically issues a request to the data subject to verify their identity against that form of identification. For example, a subject rights request might only require two types of authentication, but a deletion request may require four types of data to verify authentication. The system may automatically detect which is type of authentication is required based on the DSAR and send an appropriate request to the data subject to verify their identity.

Intelligent Prioritization of DSAR's

In various embodiments, the system may be adapted to prioritize the processing of DSAR's based on metadata about the data subject of the DSAR. For example, the system may be adapted for: (1) in response to receiving a DSAR, obtaining metadata regarding the data subject; (2) using the metadata to determine whether a priority of the DSAR should be adjusted based on the obtained metadata; and (3) in response to determining that the priority of the DSAR should be adjusted based on the obtained metadata, adjusting the priority of the DSAR.

Examples of metadata that may be used to determine whether to adjust the priority of a particular DSAR include: (1) the type of request, (2) the location from which the request is being made, (3) current sensitivities to world events, (4) a status of the requestor (e.g., especially loyal customer), or (5) any other suitable metadata.

In various embodiments, in response to the system determining that the priority of a particular DSAR should be elevated, the system may automatically adjust the deadline for responding to the DSAR. For example, the system may update the deadline in the system's memory and/or modify the “Days Left to Respond” field (See FIG. 19) to include a fewer number of days left to respond to the request. Alternatively, or in addition, the system may use other techniques to convey to a respondent that the request should be expedited (e.g., change the color of the request, send a message to the respondent that they should process the request before non-prioritized requests, etc.)

In various embodiments, in response to the system determining that the priority of a particular DSAR should be lowered, the system may automatically adjust the deadline for responding to the DSAR by adding to the number of days left to respond to the request.

Automatic Deletion of Data Subject Records Based on Detected Systems

In particular embodiments, in response a data subject submitting a request to delete their

Personal Data 108 from an organization's systems, the system may: (1) automatically determine where the data subject's Personal Data 108 is stored; and (2) in response to determining the location of the data (which may be on multiple computing systems), automatically facilitate the deletion of the data subject's Personal Data 108 from the various systems (e.g., by automatically assigning a plurality of tasks to delete data across multiple business systems to effectively delete the data subject's Personal Data 108 from the systems). In particular embodiments, the step of facilitating the deletion may comprise, for example: (1) overwriting the data in memory; (2) marking the data for overwrite; (2) marking the data as free (e.g., and deleting a directory entry associated with the data); and/or (3) any other suitable technique for deleting the Personal Data 108. In particular embodiments, as part of this process, the system uses an appropriate data model (see discussion above) to efficiently determine where all of the data subject's Personal Data 108 is stored.

Automatic Determination of Business Processes that Increase Chance of Deletion Requests

In various embodiments, the system is adapted to store, in memory, a log of DSAR actions. The system may also store, in memory, additional information regarding the data subjects of each of the requests. The system may use this information, for example, to determine which business processes are most commonly associated with a data subject submitting a request to have their personal information deleted from the organization's systems. The organization may then use this information to revise the identified business processes in an effort to reduce the number of deletion requests issued by data subjects associated with the business processes.

As a particular example, the system may analyze stored information to determine that a high number (e.g., 15%) of all participants in a company's loyalty program submit requests to have their personal information deleted from the company's systems. In response to making this determination, the system may issue an electronic alert to an appropriate individual (e.g., a privacy officer of the company), informing them of the high rate of members of the company's loyalty program issuing Personal Data 108 delete requests. This alert may prompt the individual to research the issue and try to resolve it.

Conclusion

Although embodiments above are described in reference to various privacy compliance monitoring systems, it should be understood that various aspects of the system described above may be applicable to other privacy-related systems, or to other types of systems, in general.

While this specification contains many specific embodiment details, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of any invention or of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features that may be specific to particular embodiments of particular inventions. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate embodiments may also be implemented in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single embodiment may also be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable sub-combination. Moreover, although features may be described above as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination may in some cases be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a sub-combination or variation of a sub-combination.

Similarly, while operations are depicted in the drawings in a particular order, this should not be understood as requiring that such operations be performed in the particular order shown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed, to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Moreover, the separation of various system components in the embodiments described above should not be understood as requiring such separation in all embodiments, and it should be understood that the described program components and systems may generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products.

Many modifications and other embodiments of the invention will come to mind to one skilled in the art to which this invention pertains having the benefit of the teachings presented in the foregoing descriptions and the associated drawings. Therefore, it is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed and that modifications and other embodiments are intended to be included within the scope of the appended claims. Although specific terms are employed herein, they are used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for the purposes of limitation. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented data processing method for responding to a data subject access request, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more computer processors, a data subject access request comprising one or more request parameters from a requestor at a source, wherein the one or more request parameters comprise one or more pieces of personal data associated with the requestor; identifying, by the one or more computer processors, the requestor based at least in part on the one or more request parameters; identifying, by the one or more computer processors, the source of the data subject access request based at least in part on the requestor or source data associated with the data subject access request; in response to identifying the requestor and the source of the data subject access request, determining, by the one or more computer processors, whether the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints associated with the requestor or the source, wherein determining whether the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints comprises determining, by the one or more computer processors, whether the requestor is a malicious requestor or whether the source is a malicious source; in response to determining that the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints, denying, by the one or more computer processors, the data subject access request, or requesting, by the one or more computer processors, one or more processing fees prior to fulfilling the request; and in response to determining that the data subject access request is not subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints, fulfilling, by the one or more computer processors, the data subject access request.
 2. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein the source is selected from the group consisting of: a particular IP address; and a particular domain.
 3. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 2, wherein the source is selected from the group consisting of: a particular IP address associated with a competitor; and a particular domain associated with a competitor.
 4. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 3, wherein the source is selected from the group consisting of: a particular IP address or a particular domain associated with a particular geographic region; particular IP address or a particular domain associated with a particular political group; and a particular IP address or a particular domain associated with a particular protesting group.
 5. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the requestor is a malicious requestor comprises determining whether the data subject access request comprises one of a threshold quantity of data subject access requests from the requestor within a threshold period of time.
 6. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 5, wherein the threshold time period comprises a single day.
 7. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the requestor is a malicious requestor comprises determining, by one or more computer processors, whether the requestor was previously and not currently employed by an entity receiving the data subject access request.
 8. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the requestor is a malicious requestor comprises determining that the requestor possesses a potential for malicious requests according to a stored rating assigned to the requestor in fulfillment request data associated with the requestor.
 9. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 8, wherein the stored rating is based on historical actions associated with the requestor.
 10. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the one or more limitations comprise denying the data subject access request or requesting one or more processing fees prior to fulfilling the request comprises analyzing, by one or more computer processors, a complaint history associated with the requestor.
 11. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints further comprises analyzing, by one or more computer processors, a customer history associated with the requestor, and wherein determining whether the requestor is a malicious requestor comprises determining, based at least in part on the customer history whether the requestor is a malicious requestor.
 12. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 11, wherein the customer history associated with the requestor comprises one or more spending characteristics of the requestor.
 13. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 12, wherein if the one or more spending characteristics comprise an amount spent over a reference time period that exceeds a spending threshold, then in response to determining that the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints requesting, by one or more computer processors, one or more processing fees prior to fulfilling the data subject access request.
 14. A computer-implemented data processing method for responding to a data subject access request, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more computer processors, a data subject access request comprising one or more request parameters from a requestor at a source; in response to receiving the data subject access request, retrieving, by the one or more computer processors, fulfillment constraint data associated with the data subject access request from a repository server corresponding to a plurality of data subject access requests from a plurality of requestors and a plurality of data subject access request sources; determining, by the one or more computer processors, whether the requestor is a malicious requestor or whether the source is a malicious source based on the fulfillment constraint data and the one or more request parameters; in response to determining that the requestor is the malicious requestor or that the source is the malicious source, determining, by the one or more computer processors, whether the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints; in response to determining that the data subject access request is subject to the one or more response fulfillment constraints: denying, by the one or more computer processors, the data subject access request, or requesting, by the one or more processors, one or more processing fees prior to fulfilling the request.
 15. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 14, wherein the fulfillment constraint data comprises a quantity of data subject access requests from the requestor or the source within a period of time, and wherein determining whether the requestor is a malicious requestor or whether the source is a malicious source comprises determining whether the data subject access request comprises one of a threshold quantity of data subject access requests from the requestor within a threshold period of time.
 16. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 14, wherein the fulfillment constraint data comprises a stored rating assigned to the requestor, and wherein determining whether the requestor is a malicious requestor comprises determining that the requestor possesses a potential for malicious requests according to the stored rating.
 17. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 16, wherein the stored rating is based on historical actions associated with the requestor.
 18. A computer-implemented data processing method for responding to a data subject access request, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more computer processors, a data subject access request comprising one or more request parameters from a requestor, wherein the one or more request parameters comprise one or more pieces of personal data associated with the requestor; identifying, by the one or more computer processors, the requestor based at least in part on the one or more request parameters; in response to identifying the requestor of the data subject access request, retrieving, by the one or more computer processors, fulfillment constraint data associated with the requestor; determining, by the one or more computer processors, whether the requestor is potentially malicious based on the fulfillment constraint data; in response to determining that the requestor is potentially malicious, determining, by the one or more computer processors, Whether the data subject access request is subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints; in response to determining that the data subject access request is subject to the one or more response fulfillment constraints, denying, by the one or more computer processors, the data, subject access request, or requesting, by the one or more computer processors, one or more processing fees prior to fulfilling the request; and in response to determining that the data subject access request is not subject to one or more response fulfillment constraints, fulfilling, by the one or more computer processors, the data subject access request.
 19. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 14, wherein the fulfillment constraint data comprises a stored rating assigned to the requestor, and wherein determining that the requestor is potentially malicious comprises determining that the requestor is potentially malicious based on the stored rating.
 20. The conmputer-implemented data processing method of claim 19, wherein the stored rating comprises a value assigned based on a source of the data subject access request or historical actions associated with the requestor. 